829 = ??? maybe a tin-roofers tool
830 = Ice saw
831 = Ice "Rake", missing the wooden handle. Used to move blocks of
ice cut with 830.
832 = Well, the largest part atop the pole is the bracket to hold the
other items. The largest piece attached to that is a lamp housing
with light sensor above, and the cameras mounted as they are would
speak "Video Surveillance", and my guess would be of a parking lot.
833 = ?? not a clue
834 = Jaw set removed from a brace & bit.
This answer is correct, though a couple times a week I go through several
different intersections that have these for detecting cars in the left turn
lane, and they have worked every time. Maybe the system where you work was
earlier technology or used different equipment.
> This answer is correct, though a couple times a week I go through
> different intersections that have these for detecting cars in the
> lane, and they have worked every time.
Based on what is happening right now in Los Angeles, that one belongs
in a museum.
L/A is spending about $1 meg per intersection not only to install
sensors, but also cameras that take a pictures of the vehicle and the
license plate complete with date and time stamp when you try to run a
Traffic ticket arrives in the mail, stands up in court, and is
expensive, at least by my standards.
Here (Saskatoon, Canada), the city installed a red light cam at an
intersection near a new auto mall that they developed and encouraged
dealers to move to. The dealers are now going to court to challenge the
constitutionality of the law, as they're getting the tickets from
customers on test drives running the red.
It'll be an interesting case. Finally there's somebody with pockets
challenging this cash grab.
Keep us posted on that one. I received one of those tickets. I was in
fact at fault, but the assumption that the owner is always the one
driving is not a particularly good one.
It's the usual tune - fine people and the majority will just pay up
rather than take the time and expense to fight it, even if they are
100% in the right.
> Keep us posted on that one. I received one of those tickets. I was in
> fact at fault, but the assumption that the owner is always the one
> driving is not a particularly good one.
> It's the usual tune - fine people and the majority will just pay up
> rather than take the time and expense to fight it, even if they are
> 100% in the right.
The above and $10 will get you a cup of coffee in a cheap restaurant.
This one has already been thru the courts in L/A.
As California goes, the rest of the country soon follows.
If the car is really doing something illegal and is caught on camera, I
don't have much problem with automated ticketing.
I think it's reasonable for the owner of a car to be held responsible
for its safe use, even if it has been lent out to someone else. In this
particular case, the dealer could just have people sign a waiver saying
they're responsible for any tickets, same as for rental cars.
Of course, if the vehicle was stolen at the time, then that's a whole
I read a story somewhere stating that insurance stats show that there are
actually MORE accidents at red lights with the cams. Seems that people tend
to slam on the brakes for a yellow light to prevent the chance of getting a
ticket. This causes a lot of rear end collisions.
>>Not in my area. It is just a regular traffic camera. Emergency
>>sensors are much smaller where I live (about the size of the knob
atop >>the light).
>>Apparently RH has indicated that it is a traffic sensor to change the
>>light when a vehicle is present. I thought they buried those sensors.
>No, he's talking about a special sensor on top of the light support,
>that responds to a certain frequency of strobe light, and literally
>changes the light on demand. It's used by emergency vehicles (police,
>fire, ambulance)so they can get through the gridlock. The system has
>some snazzy 21st century name, but I can't remember what it is.
>If you determined the freq, you could make one, but I'd be awfully
>skittish about using it; I'm sure it'd be quite illegal.
>But these aren't those - I don't even think they're ticket-cams - just
>surveillance, like that other poster said, probably in a parking lot.
3M Opticom, and Tomar Strobecom are the big two in light controls. They
operate on the same principle though. They use a set frequency strobe
to trigger the light.
10Hz for low priority: Increases your green light time.
14Hz for high priority: Turns your light green and all others red plus a
few other items.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:09:29 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
So let's see, Osama rents a van from Avis, packs it full of fertilizer,
and blows up a building and that's Avis's fault?
It is _not_ reasonable to hold the owner of an object legally responsible
for its misuse by another person unless there is compelling evidence that
he was aware that such misuse would be the result.
The person who is driving is the one who is in control and he is the one
who bears responsibility for his actions.
Other countries have had red light cameras operating effectively for decades.
Here in Australia they have been in use for something like 30 years.
They cost tens of thousands of dollars not a million, and they don't photograph
They are film cameras, and they have a room full of little old ladies peering at
the developed pictures looking for clear violations.
When they get a pic of a car breaking the law a ticket is sent to the registered
owner. That owner must either pay the fine or produce an affidavit telling who
was driving the vehicle at the time.
Typically car dealerships either just pay them or just shrug and say "dunno who
was driving" and try to get away with it.
Portable speed cameras are now in widespread use as well, as of the last decade,
which have made it very cheap and easy for them to generate revenue by issuing
speeding fines. These cost some $50,000 last I heard (many years ago now).
Occasionally someone goes mockador and destroys or steals one of them, the
contractors are not allowed to sit more than about 30m away from them now.
I would feel better about this if I knew exactly *when* the camera issues
the citation. Is it when a car is *in* the intersection as the light turns
red? When a car enters the intersection just *after* a yellow light turns
red (that may have been a very short yellow)? Or is it a second or so
*after* the light turns red? In the latter case, I have absolutely no
problem with the concept. The other cases are bothersome because they do
not in any way cause a traffic hazard and are often the result of
misjudging the length of a yellow or making a poor choice when the light
turns yellow. In those cases, the cars in the opposing direction will not
have had a chance to enter the intersection, whereas in the last example,
that is when accidents occur.
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.